wazzaflow10

Probably two fold if top players cost 1.5-2x of what they'd normally cost (assuming no other AI is interested) it prevents you from spending that money on other players while giving the AI two bites of the cherry to replace a player. I don't think its how it's done really but for a shortcut to AI Transfer logic I could see it. Crazier things have happened from games in the 90s lol.

That's all conjecture. There's no way you can possibly attribute Barcelona going out in the quarter finals to a single player. By that logic Chelsea should have won the Champions League in 15/16.

What skin are you using btw? I thought about that too. I think the easiest way to get around that is to create a tier for scouts like a local/junior scout senior/national scout regional scouting director and finally you get your chief scout. Based on your club you might only have so many positions. Talented scouts will want to be promoted to higher level positions and will aggressively seek them out so you can't fill your whole team with 20/20 staff. And the number of 20/20 scouts would be relatively rare and only want to work at the top clubs after boosting their reputation. Additionally a 20 in JPA or JPP should have a degree of potential inaccuracy baked in to their reports. Suppose we had a system like below (no math behind it just making something up for argument sake) where scouts abilities rolled for accuracy each time they performed a task. Accuracy would be either be +/- above actual. There should also probably be a boost in accuracy based on number of times scouted with diminishing results (kind of already in the game with knowledge level). A scouting report is also only partially weighted to make up attributes shown. Reputation, form/stats, training (which we might not know if they aren't on our team creating a permanent blind spot) so a scout might have to "ask" around to find out how well they perform in sessions could all play a part in what you actually see in the player profile screen. Another issue that could be sorted out is that when a coach says world class or elite or leading league player etc the attributes shown on the page should match that range. So if a player is deemed to be world class reputation they should have attributes that appear in the 170+ CA range (obviously their actual CA doesn't change) as a baseline. Its a little annoyance when you have the staff meetings and they say so and so is now considered an "x" level player but their attributes haven't changed at all. Its a big disconnect for me because its a meaningless comment. The player is the same as he was 2 months ago but now you're saying he's "better" but attributes don't reflect that. Finally this would be a tickable option at game start so you'd choose to play this way. People who don't want to have this don't have to use it and can fly though seasons and not worry too much about scouting accuracy. This would be for the people who want more of a challenge in recruitment and want to use in game mechanism to stop the wonderkid hunting without making crazy house rules. I appreciate the people like you who do that and dedicate time to making filters and playing the game in what is potentially a more realistic fashion. For me its hard to draw a particular line on what is and what isn't "acceptable". My own house rules are only buy players that have been scouted. Even if I know Marcos Leonardo is a wonderkid if he doesn't show up in a scouting report naturally then I can't sign him. There's no searching for players at all.

You do know that Neymar and Messi played together only mildly successfully at Barcelona for 4 years with players like Suarez, Alexis Sanchez next to them. Probably has more to do with both being older, injured and PSG thinking they were the new Galacticos rather than PSG. I'm not sure where the attributes don't matter came into play. Do we have any evidence for this? And its well known that real players don't have bad personalities but that's mostly due to not wanting to get sued apparently. Could the game do with slightly more personality? Sure, absolutely but that's not really holding the game back that much.

You still do though. He's just replaced the numbers with a size of circle. Sure its obscured a bit more but fundamentally nothing has changed. It's like the older games when you just had text to describe a player. Excellent would be something between 16-18 rating (hypothetical I don't remember what the ranges were off the top of my head). The real challenge is when attributes change based on things other than player growth. People who are playing to just hoover up wonderkids and game the system are going to do it regardless. This would put them in peril of overvaluing the "newest" talent in favor or something established and wrecking their team. It would really serve two purposes: 1) All the people complaining about dynamic PA would shut up because a player who went from league One to CL top scorer would look like a world class player to them despite having an actual CA/PA in the 120s. 2) You'd actually have to make a choice about do you sell a star player who's not performing because his form has declined a bit and his attributes suggest he's on the downside of his career?

That's more or less meaningless in the grand scheme of things though. The issue is that you know a player is around a 16 with 100% certainty. 15.5 and 16.4 won't play that different that it really matters. What is being asked/requested is that the attributes shown in the game reflect a scouting report rather than a hard absolute number. Even FM's own researchers will boost a player after a good season and nerf after a poor season. A player that is in form such that reports say a player has progressed from a good league player to leading league player should have attributes shown in line with that sort of CA. Instead they are static numbers with only real CA progress as increases/decreases. It is very easy to see a player is "overachieving" and sell or "underachieving" and buy because there's not attribute risk. Really the game should hide a player's CA just as they do PA. Attributes shown on the player profile screen should be reflective of scout/coach opinion, form etc. IMO it would nerf a lot of the "this game is too easy" talk after 3 years when you buy and know who the best players are with 100% certainty. Its virtually impossible for a star singing to flop as a human manager right now.

I've had similar thoughts to the point I was ready to open a bug thread about it. There was an outstanding newgen CF sold to arsenal for a few million but then valued 250M+ despite only playing 9 league games as a 19 year old. I didn't think much of it until I had players labeled as world class (Declan Rice, Bellingham) worth barely 100M at Man Utd. The most hilarious part of this was I sold Sancho for 90M to PSG and bought Vini Jr for 170 after add-ons. Sancho is now worth 200+ while Vini Jr is between 130-150 despite earning more and having a longer contract than he did at Madrid. Seems pretty crazy to me that to buy the same player back it would be twice what I paid for him while the better player I'd lose money on despite performing better than Sancho ever did in the league. It seems to me more like SI is tweaking the game a little bit to prevent human players from buying everyone cheap and exploiting the AI too easily. Probably easier to add value to non human players teams than it is to make better negotiation logic.

there's a bug currently. log your save game here:

Uploading two files ScoutingNotWorking_24_1 and ScoutingNotWorking_24_2. The first file was last saved on 6 Nov 23. Rec Focuses seem to be working as intended with plenty recommended and U18 players being shown. Game date is about two years ahead of ScoutingNotWorking24_2 that was last saved today (29 Dec 23). It took a few game years to cycle the players already scouted out of the u18 range but the bug appears to have occurred after the 24.2 update. This was a port from fm23 save so I have a beta and per-conversion save if needed to go further back in time. Main issues: Definitely having an issue with u18 scouting not occurring at all. No players U18 are being scouted unless I manually assigned them (some were done as a test in the second save). Rec Focus "England U18" in uploaded save ScoutingNotWorking24.2 shows no recommended players. Also having issues where some players will be scouted and fit the profile but not recommended. Also seems like scouts are not particularly doing much of anything in some regions even with "extensive" knowledge. Players should still show up under "scouted players" tab even if getting a poor grade but nothing happens in certain areas.

Something is broken for scouting U18 players. I have the same issue. think it came through on the recent patch b/c I had recommendations for u18 players prior to that.

Away games are more difficult in real life too. This year is much better in terms of not having your entire team nerfed for playing away though. There were about 50 goals a year missing last year from away teams in the top leagues. Routinely saw Liverpool, City, Real Madrid and Barca conceding fewer than 10 goals a year at home. That's been done maybe twice in the past decade but it would be an every year occurrence in the game. As far as goals from weaker teams it certainly feels like sometimes they are much more clinical than bigger clubs. It can be a slog sometimes to get a breakthrough only to watch you team get carved open like a christmas turkey on the next highlight. But if you watched Liverpool v Burnley on Boxing Day I'm sure Klopp was one of us. Hopefully they'll patch it for him after the winter transfer window

Yes understood. I do feel like elite penalty takers miss more often than they should in general. I think I had a game at one point (probably overwritten now) where I had two saved in one match with Fernandes and Rashford both missing. I know this has been an on and off issue trying to get the balance right. Obviously shouldn't be automatic. If anything I've see the opposite. Particularly if the text commentary suggests the call was a bit soft tends to have more misses oddly. I'll keep track and open a thread if I see something I can pinpoint for you guys.

Daveincid is the best to answer this probably don't know if he'll respond directly here but i've seen he'll respond to private messages. My understanding of how it works is the database you load at the start is what he game works to keep in balance during the save both in numbers and talent. The best option is always to add more leagues imo even if it is view only. It keeps the game in a more natural balance in terms of how talent is distributed throughout the world. View only will keep processing times down as they're minimally active. Combining both adding players and leagues is a good option to fill in some of the gaps where SI doesn't have leagues available. i.e loading all international players in Africa so that African teams more or less keep up with loaded nations. If you do option A only I think the biggest risk is the unbalancing of the transfer market. There will be too many players and not enough teams making it harder to sell and easier to buy. You'll also likely have more potent youth intakes than normal as the game will tend to push newgens through loaded leagues. It'll take 20 years or so to really feel the effects of this I think but it could be a save ruiner in the long run. It all kind of depends on what you want to do. If the idea is to dethrone Celtic/Rangers with an 11th division scottish amateur team and scour the world for the best talents then you'll want a more diverse world at start. If this is to bounce around the lower levels of scotland/wales/ireland and never really work your way into European competitions and don't care much about international tournaments you probably don't need to worry about adding players or leagues.

he had 6 months with an option for 1 more year. I'd have thought it'd be something closer to the transfer value or at least in the millions considering his value and contract and status in the game. That's what I think the insurance would be paying out is loss of transfer value more so than coverage for wages (which would be in the event of an injury from international duty for instance.

If you keep negotiating with them eventually they'll agree I've found. More just annoying that it takes 2, 3, sometimes 4 suggestions that a player should be a squad or regular starter. It makes the developmental list unusable because bids will get outright rejected.

I've had three players request a promise to have their role be AML/R Winger on their off side (all of whom are better suited as inverted wingers or inside forwards). I think there's too much weighting towards Winger role in the game in terms of how many players list it as their best position if they are also pacy and good at crossing/dribbling. Is there some sort of role difficulty that isn't being accounted for? I would suspect the winger role would be the least challenging role and if a player can play IW or IF equally or close to equally as well they'd have that be listed as their best role, especially if they are on the opposite side.

I'm more married to the Libero than anything else. I've done a 2-3-5 in the past and was now tinkering around with a 3-2-5. The width in the build up is definitely a challenge at times as its a naturally narrow formation. I do have run wide with ball ticked for both IFBs so that does create some space. Just seems like its very difficult to consistently create high quality chances in this kind of set up.

Interesting this is in the game. Anyone know how they calculate it? His value at the time of retirement was 40-50M. Want to say on 200k p/w as well.

I've tried various iterations of trying to get this any version of this tactic to work. I dominate possession as you'd expect against 95% of teams but lack any sort of attacking thrust from the front 5. I've tried DLFs Poachers double IF-as double IW, play wider, play narrower etc. Nothing really seems to be consistent in terms of creating quality chances. Has anyone been able to really make this really work is one of the shortcomings that it simply controls possession but much of it is pointless?

Just turned a 1-2 game around to win 4-2 with this formation with a high press hard tackling attacking mentality and very direct passing. In my defense, I had 65% possession and endlessly watched my players shoot from 30 yards instead of passing to open teammates inside the box prior to this change. Probably on the edge of "exploit".

change this to say any. If nothing shows up there's still players in players scouted. they just haven't met the min grade of being recommended for various reasons (contract, value, interest etc). You'll have to manually look for them there.

make you you have any tactic selected and reduce the stars. if nothing then just go to scouted players and search there.

I don't think scoring is much of an issue anymore. If anything higher quality players need to finish more clinically. Corners to the top of the area are too powerful and throw ins are definitely better but still a bit nervy. I'd like to see more open play goals converted than watch set pieces be the difference.